[nolemmings]

"The person handing out the suspension also being the one to hear the appeal I hope needs no explanation as to why it's not appropriate."

I’m one who doesn’t get a lot of heartburn over that. It is not that unusual for a judge who has made a ruling in a case to be presented with a motion for reconsideration, in which he or she is presented with (supposedly) new arguments or evidence that politely suggest the decision previously rendered should be overturned. One rationale for this is to allow the decision-maker who is alleged to have erred an opportunity to correct the mistake without the need to bother or provide additional work for the appellate forum up the chain. Although reconsideration motions seldom succeed, so long as there is available a further and reasonable avenue of appeal in front of someone else, in this case a Federal District Court, then I don’t consider it a big deal for Goodell to act as he did. Maybe it's not the best system, but I do not see it so fundamentally flawed as the NFLPA argues. This is particularly so when the “integrity of the game” is the issue, whether or not you think the rules for equipment violations rise to that level; in that event, the Commissioner is aptly suited and perhaps the best qualified to decide, and not some disinterested party who presumably is somewhat removed from the game and its industry.

I’ve stopped investing much time in this, so maybe others can research or remind me of what all happened earlier, but if I recall, the whole process was collectively bargained, so the union had an opportunity to negotiate a different disciplinary process and ultimately agreed to this one. I also thought when Goodell first looked into this he delegated the matter to Troy Vincent, to which the NFLPA objected also, saying Goodell himself should preside. Had they been granted their wish, there would be even less independence when he heard an appeal of his own, wholly-made initial decision. You may think he simply rubber-stamped his delegated representative’s recommendation or ruling, and/or that the law firm hired to investigate and report was biased, but at least in theory there were other sets of eyes and ears on these issues as part of the process. I am not convinced the union or its clients had the right to expect fully unassociated, agreed-upon arbiters and fact-finders appointed for this case, or that the failure to provide same results in a breach of either the collective bargaining agreement or fundamental fairness.